ReinhartMarvilleTorre

Fanny Rocaboy

Fanny Rocaboy

Avocat – Counsel

LITIGATION – White-collar crime

  • Commercial litigation (termination of commercial relationships, shareholders disputes, removal of managers, post-acquisition disputes, investigation measures 145 CPC),
  • White-collar crime (fraudulent use of corporate assets, misappropriation of public funds, unlawful taking of interest, and favouritism, corruption, misleading commercial practices, Bribery…)
  • Compliance (Sapin 2: compliance, due diligence procedures, anti-bribery training and AFA’s control…)

  • Member of the Compliance Circle
  • Master II in European Business Law – Paris II Panthéon Assas University
  • Master II in Industrial property – Paris II Panthéon Assas University
  • Langues:French / English

Fanny has extensive experience in commercial litigation and white-collar crime. Pragmatic and operational, she heads, with Marion Lambert-Barret, the Compliance practice within the firm./strong>

Fanny assists and represents national companies or subsidiaries of foreign groups before commercial and criminal courts as well as specialized administrative authorities (AFA, AMF…).

As such, she regularly deals with major economic and financial matters requiring a rigorous and an in-depth analysis of legal risks as well as a high degree of responsiveness.

Fanny assists her clients in the implementation of « tailor-made » anti-corruption programs and offers, through strategic partnerships, to cover all the Sapin II requirements. She regularly provides targeted training on the risk of corruption and influence peddling as well as house-search procedure (AFA control, investigatory or French discovery measures)

  • «Appropriate use of Article 145: a juggling act for an effective and timely measure»
    To safeguard the effectiveness of the “Article 145 measures”, Louis-Marie Absil and Fanny Rocaboy offer their analyses based on experiences and discussions with the main players: a plaintiff measured in their approach, a judge involved in the follow-up of the measure, a non-excessive defendant upon enforcement of the measure but responsive and aware of their fundamental rights…
    Option Droit & Affaires, 23 January 2013

    >> Lire l’article
  • «Unfair competition/Search for evidence. The judge: one of the key-players in the effectiveness of the ‘Article 145’ measure»
    The discussion between the judge and the plaintiff’s counsel, prior to the order, is crucial to defining a useful, realistic and effective framework to preserve the plaintiff’s legitimate rights and the fundamental rights of the defendant. By Louis-Marie Absil and Fanny Rocaboy
    Lettre des Juristes d’Affaires, 29 October 2012
  • «The Failing Company Defense» comparative analysis in US and UE merger law
    Comparative law Institute, septembre 2005
  • Assistance to a foreign group’s subsidiary located in France and its many subsidiaries abroad in order to enable each of them to comply with the Sapin II law;
  • Assistance to the UIMM in the case known as the employers’ slush fund during the investigation and subsequent trial before the criminal court (breach of trust, corruption and concealed work)
  • Representing a consumer credit institution in numerous criminal proceedings for misleading commercial practices, fraud, abuse of weakness in the financing of certain partnerships (photovoltaic, low-cost dental centre, etc.)
  • Advising an automotive equipment manufacturer as part of several proceedings following fraud committed by certain employees of the company (criminal proceedings, unfair competition, commercial litigation for several million euros)
  • Assistance to the former director and reference shareholder of a listed company in numerous disputes (criminal proceedings for fraudulent use of corporate assets, commercial proceedings and hearings by the AMF for insider trading)
  • Advising a group specialising in senior service residences in the context of violent shareholder disputes (compulsory enforcement of bilateral undertaking to sell and purchase, implementation of protective measures, unfair competition actions, etc.).
  • Implementation and monitoring of several commercial and arbitration proceedings for a supermarket chain in disputes with its former partners who have joined competing chains.
  • Assistance to the French subsidiary of a leading international group supplying hygiene products in the context of an indemnity claim following a sanction by the French Competition Authority,
  • Advising two former managers of one of the main European investment funds in the context of the enforcement of agreements concluded with the management company;
  • Support for an online sales site as part of a license compliance audit conducted by a company distributing these IT solutions.
  • Representing several firm’s clients in several cases as part of investigation measures implemented in their professional premises or in the executives’ homes.
  • Unfair competition and parasitism action against former employees and partners of a worldwide leader company in alarm servers and real-time communication solutions.